Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
1
4
14
of the Rules of Court, even if not yet in effect when Chan commenced Civil
Case No. 915-00 on August 3, 2000, are nonetheless applicable. It is
axiomatic that the retroactive application of procedural laws does not violate
any right of a person who may feel adversely affected, nor is it
constitutionally objectionable. The reason is simply that, as a general rule,
no vested right may attach to, or arise from, procedural laws. Any new rules
may validly be made to apply to cases pending at the time of their
promulgation, considering that no party to an action has a vested right in the
rules of procedure, except that in criminal cases, the changes do not
retroactively apply if they permit or require a lesser quantum of evidence to
convict than what is required at the time of the commission of the offenses,
because such retroactivity would be unconstitutional for being ex post facto
under the Constitution.
Same; Same; Same; Although the court has ruled that the issuance of a
bouncing check may result in two separate and distinct crimes of estafa and
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the procedures for the recovery of the
civil liabilities arising from these two distinct crimes are different and noninterchangeable.The CAs reliance on DMPI Employees Credit
Association v. Velez, 371 SCRA 72 (2001), to give due course to the civil
action of Chan independently and separately of Criminal Case No. 275381
was unwarranted. DMPI Employees, which involved a prosecution for
estafa, is not on all fours with this case, which is a prosecution for a
violation of BP 22. Although the Court has ruled that the issuance of a
bouncing check may result in two separate and distinct crimes of estafa and
violation of BP 22, the procedures for the recovery of the civil liabilities
arising from these two distinct crimes are different and non-interchangeable.
In prosecutions of estafa, the offended party may opt to reserve his right to
file a separate civil action, or may institute an independent action based on
fraud pursuant to Article 33 of the Civil Code, as DMPI Employees has
allowed. In prosecutions of violations of BP 22, however, the Court has
adopted a policy to prohibit the reservation or institution of a separate civil
action to claim the civil liability arising from the issuance of the bouncing
check upon the reasons delineated in Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing
Corporation, supra.
Remedial Law; Actions; Litis Pendentia; Requisites for litis pendentia
to be successfully invoked as a bar to an action.For litis
15
15
there must be identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs
being founded on the same facts; and, (c) the identity in the two cases should
be such that the judgment that may be rendered in one would, regardless of
which party is successful, amount to res judicata in respect of the other.
Absent the first two requisites, the possibility of the existence of the third
becomes nil.
1
6
cient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for payment of such check in
full upon its presentment, which check when presented for payment within
ninety (90) days from the date thereof was subsequently dishonored by the
drawee bank for Account Closed and despite receipt of notice of such
dishonor, said accused failed to pay said Elvin Chan the amount of the check
or to make arrangement for full payment of the same within five (5) banking
days after receiving said notice.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
17
1
8
19
plaintiff does not contest; however, it is the submission of the plaintiff that
an implied reservation of the right to file a civil action has already been
made, first, by the fact that the information for violation of B.P. 22 in
Criminal Case No. 2753841 does not at all make any allegation of damages
suffered by the plaintiff nor is there any claim for recovery of damages; on
top of this the plaintiff as private complainant in the criminal case, during
the presentation of the prosecution evidence was not represented at all by a
private prosecutor such that no evidence has been adduced by the
prosecution on the criminal case to prove damages; all of these we
respectfully submit demonstrate an effective implied reservation of the right
of the plaintiff to file a separate civil action for damages;
3. The defendant relies on Section 3 sub-paragraph (a) Rule 111 of the
Revised Rules of Court which mandates that after a criminal action has been
commenced the civil action cannot be instituted until final judgment has
been rendered in the criminal action; however, the defendant overlooks and
conveniently failed to consider that under Section 2, Rule 111 which
provides as follows:
In the cases provided for in Articles 31, 32, 33, 34 and 2177 of the
2
0
be negotiated by delivery by who ever was the bearer of the check and such
negotiation was valid and effective against the drawer;
5. Indeed, assuming as true the allegations of the defendant regarding
the circumstances relative to the issuance of the check it would be entirely
impossible for the plaintiff to have been aware that such check was intended
only for a definite person and was not negotiable considering that the said
check was payable to bearer and was not even crossed;
6. We contend that what cannot be prosecuted separate and apart from
the criminal case without a reservation is a civil action arising from the
criminal offense charged. However, in this instant case since the liability of
the defendant are imposed and the rights of the plaintiff are created by the
negotiable instruments law, even without any reservation at all this instant
action may still be prosecuted;
7.
Having this shown, the merits of plaintiffs complaint the
application for damages against the bond is totally without any legal support
and perforce should be dismissed outright.
6
21
2
2
separate civil action, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of
merit.
SO ORDERED.
On July 31, 2001, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Pasay City
upheld the dismissal of Chans complaint, disposing:9
_______________
8 Id., at p. 56.
9 Id., at pp. 76-79.
23
23
2
4
When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of
civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted
with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action,
reserves the right to institute it separately or institute the civil action prior
to the criminal action.
Rule 111, Section 2 further states:
After the criminal action has been commenced, the separate civil action
arising therefrom cannot be instituted until final judgment has been entered
in the criminal action.
However, with respect to civil actions for recovery of civil liability under
Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code arising from the same act or
omission, the rule has been changed.
In DMPI Employees Credit Association vs. Velez, the Supreme Court
pronounced that only the civil liability arising from the offense charged is deemed
instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil
action, reserves his right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior
to the criminal action. Speaking through Justice Pardo, the Supreme Court held:
There is no more need for a reservation of the right to file the
independent civil action under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines. The reservation and waiver referred to refers only
to the civil action for the recovery of the civil liability arising from the
offense charged. This does not include recovery of civil liability under
Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising
from the same act or omission which may be prosecuted separately without
a reservation.
Rule 111, Section 3 reads:
Sec. 3. When civil action may proceed independently. In the
cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines, the independent civil action may be brought by the
offended party. It shall proceed independently of the criminal
action and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In no
case, however, may the offended party recover damages twice for
25
6
Heirs of Eduardo Simon vs. Chan
cles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the Civil Code; that the CAs reliance on
the ruling in DMPI Employees Credit Cooperative Inc. v. Velez14
stretched the meaning and intent of the ruling, and was contrary to
Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure; that
this case was a simple collection suit for a sum of money, precluding
the application of Section 3 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure.15
In his comment,16 Chan counters that the petition for review should
be denied because the petitioners used the wrong mode of appeal; that
his cause of action, being based on fraud, was an independent civil
action; and that the appearance of a private prosecutor in the criminal
case did not preclude the filing of his separate civil action.
Issue
The lone issue is whether or not Chans civil action to recover the
amount of the unfunded check (Civil Case No. 915-00) was an
independent civil action.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious.
A Applicable Law and Jurisprudence on the Propriety of filing a
separate civil action based on BP 22
The Supreme Court has settled the issue of whether or not a
violation of BP 22 can give rise to civil liability in Banal v. Judge
Tadeo, Jr.,17 holding:
_______________
14 G.R. No. 129282, November 29, 2001, 371 SCRA 72.
15 See note 19, p.16.
16 Rollo, pp. 105-109.
17 G.R. No. L-78911, December 11, 1987, 156 SCRA 325.
27
27
2
8
action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to
institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be
made before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence and under
circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make
such reservation.
When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against the
accused by way of moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages
without specifying the amount thereof in the complaint or information, the
filing fees therefor shall constitute a first lien on the judgment awarding such
damages.
Where the amount of damages, other than actual, is specified in the
complaint or information, the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the
offended party upon the filing thereof in court.
Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no filing fees shall be
required for actual damages.
No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be filed by the
accused in the criminal case, but any cause of action which could have been
the subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil action. (1a)
(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No
reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed.
Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended
party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check
involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages claimed. Where
the complaint or information also seeks to recover liquidated, moral,
nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the offended party shall pay the
filing fees based on the amounts alleged therein. If the amounts are not so
alleged but any of these damages
18
_______________
18 Bold emphasis supplied.
29
29
are subsequently awarded by the court, the filing fees based on the amount
awarded shall constitute a first lien on the judgment.
Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not
yet commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal action upon
application with the court trying the latter case. If the application is granted,
the trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance with section 2 of the
3
0
_______________
21 Sec. 22, Art. III, 1987 Constitution; Cooleys Principle of Constitutional Law, p. 313.
22 Bold emphasis supplied.
31
31
revised Rules, the criminal action for violation of B.P. 22 shall be deemed to
include the corresponding civil action. The reservation to file a separate civil
action is no longer needed. The Rules provide:
Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions.
(a) x x x
(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No
reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed.
Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the
offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of
the check involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages
claimed. Where the complaint or information also seeks to recover
liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the
offended party shall pay additional filing fees based on the amounts
alleged therein. If the amounts are not so alleged but any of these
damages are subsequently awarded by the court, the filing fees based
on the amount awarded shall constitute a first lien on the judgment.
_______________
23 G.R. No. 163597, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 454, 459-461.
32
3
2
Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof
has not yet commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal
action upon application with the court trying the latter case. If the
application is granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in
accordance with section 2 of this Rule governing consolidation of the
civil and criminal actions.
The foregoing rule was adopted from Circular No. 57-97 of this Court. It
specifically states that the criminal action for violation of B.P. 22 shall be
deemed to include the corresponding civil action. It also requires the
complainant to pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check
involved. Generally, no filing fees are required for criminal cases, but
because of the inclusion of the civil action in complaints for violation of B.P.
22, the Rules require the payment of docket fees upon the filing of the
complaint. This rule was enacted to help declog court dockets which are
filled with B.P. 22 cases as creditors actually use the courts as collectors.
Because ordinarily no filing fee is charged in criminal cases for actual
33
rights may be fully adjudicated in the proceedings before the trial court,
resort to a separate action to recover civil liability is clearly
unwarranted. In view of this special rule governing actions for violation
of B.P. 22, Article 31 of the Civil Code cited by the trial court will not
apply to the case at bar.
24
3
4
773 [2008])
o0o
_______________
*** Acting Chairperson in lieu of Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales who is on leave
per Special Order No. 925 dated January 24, 2011.
**** Additional member per Special Order No. 926 dated January 24, 2011.